UNION MUT. LIFE INS. CO. V. UNIVBBSITY OF CHICAGO. 443 ���Union Mutual Lifb Insurance Co. «.The University op Chicago and others. �(Circuit Court, N. D. lllimi». March 23, 1881.) �1. Federal ahd State Court— CoNixioTma Jueisdiction— Sbrvicb �op Process. �• Where two suits, involving to a great estent the same subject- matter, are brought respectively in a state and federal court, that court TThose process is flrst served obtains jurisdiction oi all questions ■which legitimately flow out of the subject-matter of the case. �2. Same — Same— Same. �A bill was flled in a state court to restrain the foreclosure of a mortgage, and have the same set aside and declared void. Subse- quently, but on the same day, a bill was flled in a federal court for the foreclosure of the same mortgage, and charged that the defendant was eonspiring with divers persons to defeat a recovery, by denying that the said defendant had any authority to execute such mortgage. The process of the federal court was served upon the following day, before 11 a. m., but the process of the state court was not served until af ter 2 p. M. of the same day. Hdd, that the federal court had a right to go on and decide all questions which legitimately flowed out of the subject-matter of controversy in the case, namely, those affecting the existence of the mortgage and the, right of the mortgagor to make it, so as to reach a decree, if the case warranted it, which should be conclusive upon the mortgagor ; that is to say, which should pre- vent the mortgagor from ever setting up any claim or right to the property, or any claim whatever that it had pot the right to execute the mortgage. — [Ed. �Leonard Swett, E. R, Bliss, and J. L. High, for complain- ant. �Charles A. Gregory, for the University of Chicago. �Decker, Douglas e Kistler, for the Douglas heirs. �Dbummond, C. J. In 1856, Stephen A. Douglas was the owner of a tract of land in the south part of the city, which he proposed to convey to certain parties or to a corporation for an institution of leaming. A contract was made between him and Dr. Burroughs, who represented the institution, on the second day of April, 1856. This conveyance was to be made on certain conditions which were expressed in the con- tract, among which were that there should be a building erected on the property, and that a certain amount of money ��� �
